Summary

We're going to wrap up our live coverage for the day. With the foregone defeat of two bills in the Senate today and the departure of the House on weekend recess, the sequester is a done deal, barring some truly, shockingly extraordinary twist.

Starting at midnight tomorrow, federal programs will begin to operate on budgets trimmed by a total of $85 billion over seven months. A guide to what will be cut is here. If the Congress does not replace the sequester by the end of the year, further cuts totaling $1.2tn over 10 years will be enacted.

The Congress faces a 27 March deadline to pass a continuing resolution to fund the government. Taxes and spending will once again be on the table, and a sequester agreement could shake out. Or Congress may reach a budget agreement without addressing the sequester.

There will be one last sequester negotiation, tomorrow at the White House, but no Congress around to pass any agreement that might (pshaw) miraculously shake out.

5.31pm ET

Republicans accuse Democrats of fear-mongering when they warn of longer lines at airports as TSA and air-traffic control personnel are furloughed due to sequestration.

TSA administrator John S. Pistole told Congress Wednesday that "the greatest impact of the cuts may be felt during the spring break and summer travels seasons when airports are busiest," the Washington Post reported.

Is he exaggerating? We hope the Republicans are right about this. Please let the Republicans be right about this.

People wait in a security line at John F. Kennedy Airport on February 28, 2013 in New York City. Photograph: Spencer Platt/Getty Images

5.31pm ET

As promised, the Senate has voted on a Democratic proposal to replace the sequester with a package of spending cuts and tax hikes. As promised, the measure failed. Brian Beutler of TPM reports:

The final vote was 51-49. It needed 60 votes to pass... If the bill would have become law, it would have replaced tens of billions of dollars in spending cuts set to take place this year with 10 years’ worth of deficit reducing tax increases and targeted spending cuts. ...

With both the House and Senate now out of session, and no legislation on the docket in either chamber to address sequestration, the Obama administration will be forced to issue the order on Friday.

If you think Congress isn't doing anything about the sequester, you're wrong – technically wrong, at least. Sens Pat Toomey and James Inhofe have introduced a nonstarter piece of legislation that would give the president the power to choose where the budget will be cut – instead of having to accept the current split between defense cuts and nondefense discretionary spending.

Nonstarter because some Republicans oppose it and the president opposes it.

The irony is that the support for this proposal to transfer power to the White House is coming from Republicans, while its most committed opponents are Democrats — including the White House, which hasn’t asked for, and doesn’t want, this authority...

The real problem is that the sequester remains the sequester. “It’s still 85 billion in cuts in [fiscal year] 13,” says one White House staffer. “There’s no way around us having an economic opposition to taking out $85 billion in the next seven months."

Looks like the Democrats won't agree to spending cuts without additional tax revenue. Who could know?

5.31pm ET

If you think sequestration will help get a handle on the deficit... think again, write Thomas E. Mann and Norman Ornstein in an opinion piece titled "Five myths about the sequester":

The annual budget deficit is projected to fall by almost 50 percent in 2013 compared with the height of the recession. Reducing the deficit over the long term requires going where the money is — boosting economic growth, controlling health-care costs and increasing revenue to handle the expense of an aging population. Deeper discretionary-spending cuts are counterproductive; immediate cuts, as Europe has made recently, could lead to a recession and bigger deficits.

Carney ignores the question and says Gene Sperling is a nice, hard-working guy.

"I have enormous respect for the work that Bob Woodward is famous for..." Carney says. "But we had a factual disagreement that we stand by."

5.31pm ET

Jay Carney is holding the daily White House briefing. He says the Republicans are filibustering Senate legislation that would replace the sequester.

"Filibuster" is a strong word for what's happening in the Senate. It's not like the House is waiting to sign anything the Senate would pass. But Carney uses the word, as Reid did, to remind everyone of the Chuck Hagel episode. The goal being to paint Republicans as obstructionist.

Will it work?

But what Carney's saying so far is completely flat compared to the chat above – there's still 15 minutes left, jump in.

5.31pm ET

House majority leader Eric Cantor's speaking on the House floor about sequestration.

The president is hawking a "false choice" between higher taxes and air travel being shut down, Cantor says. The airports aren't going to close, he says. He says the administration is just trying to scare people.

Rep. Steny Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, rebuts: The gentlemen is mistaken if he thinks it's just House Democrats who want more taxes on the wealthy.

"I regret the fact that the gentleman doesn't like the president going around the country and telling the truth," Hoyer says.

5.31pm ET

Now's the time to join the chat, right up top ^

A note from moderator Ruth Spencer:

I should take a moment to mention that we've got some federal workers joining the chat. One is an employee of the equal employment opportunity commission and the other is a doctor who works on a military base. We'll be including their responses throughout the chat with Heidi and Todd.

5.31pm ET

Exeunt.

5.31pm ET

Reid's asked about the budget talks leading up to the March 27 deadline to pass a continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government for the next fiscal year.

If Congress can't come up with a CR, the government will shut down, a la 1995-6.

Reid's answer is very, very discouraging, for anyone hoping for sane negotiations.

"We're going to have to wait to see what the House sends us," he says. "Is it going to be a straight CR? Is it going to be a CR with defense in it? Is it going to have defense and veterans in it? We don't know."

Reid says the same fight has been going on for two years.

"They're unwilling to do what the American people want done. It's as simple as that."

Reid blames House Republicans. "They've done nothing," Reid says. "They've not even allowed Democrats to have a vote. They fell back on legislation passed in the last Congress."

Reid says he hasn't negotiated with McConnell.

"The Republicans want the sequester to go forward," Reid said. "They've said so."

5.31pm ET

Murray holds up a employee "warn notice," which she says have gone out to federal workers and their families informing them of a possible furlough.

It's scary for these families to get one, she says.

She says Tea Party Republicans are cheering for the sequestration cuts. "Republicans seem to think that closing loopholes for the richest Americans is too much to ask."

"House Republicans couldn't even be bothered to take a vote," Murray says. "They sat on their hands."

5.31pm ET

"The blame game is nothing but a sideshow," Schumer says, juggling his metaphors like a salad.

"The truth is both sides have their fingerprints on sequestration, but only one side is trying to solve it."

Then he says something about wanting a dance partner. Points for imaginative language.

5.31pm ET

The Senate Democrats are speaking. At the podium are Sens Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer and Patty Murray, the Budget committee chair.

Reid says he intends to bring a vote on a proposal to replace the sequester this afternoon.

Reid says the GOP had threatened to filibuster his bill. "Ayotte, McCain, Graham, I don't know who else."

"Another filibuster," Reid says. "They're determined to protect the wealthiest of the wealthy."

Reid says the Democrats want a law that closes tax loopholes and adopts the so-called Buffett rule, which sets a 30% taxation floor for top earners.

"By an almost 80% margin this is what America wants," Reid says. "Even 60% of Republicans want this.

"The only Americans who disagree with this proposal are the Republicans who serve in Congress."

5.31pm ET

House majority leader Eric Cantor warned of a "civil war" in a private meeting with fellow Republicans Wednesday, the National Review reports:

House majority leader Eric Cantor is increasingly frustrated with a group of House Republicans who are working against the leadership, and he’s not afraid of voicing his dismay.

In a closed-door conference meeting on Wednesday, Cantor told one GOP member that if they blocked the Senate-passed Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) from coming to the floor, they’d cause “civil war” in the ranks.

Cantor’s comment irked some Republican aides, who told National Review Onlinethat such strong language is inappropriate.

If the Republican party tears itself apart, Cantor apparently wants it to be on his terms. As Ryan Lizza reported in the New Yorker this week, in 2011 Cantor was the one who pressured Boehner not to cut a big budget deal with the president, warning of a mutiny from the hard right.

Incidentally Cantor's advice on that point appears to have been sound, given how narrow Boehner's reelection as speaker was last month.

5.31pm ET

We're due to hear from Senate Democrats in about 15 minutes. Then we'll launch a chat – see the widget above – on the sequester that we'd encourage you to join if you like.

Click the widget now to join the chat, add questions and to comment. The full chat starts at 12:30pm ET.

Chatting today will by Guardian US economics and finance editor Heidi N. Moore; Todd Zwillich, Washington correspondent of The Takeaway; and federal workers facing furlough due to sequestration.

5.31pm ET

Boehner says he'll be at the White House but he sounds distinctly pessimistic. The House will be adjourned for the weekend; they won't be able to pass anything anyway.

"We've laid our cards on the table," Boehner says. "We've shown we can pass bills to replace the sequester. That's why we did it twice." (Read about those two unworkable House bills here.)

"I don't blame the supercommittee members," Boehner says, referring to the bipartisan group that was first to fail to strike an agreement to replace the sequester, back in November 2011. "It's unfortunate they didn't come to an outcome. But there were others influencing the supercommittee to not come to an agreement unless their goals were met.

"And I would start there with the president of the United States."

5.31pm ET

Speaker John Boehner says sequestration is a consequence of the president doing what's convenient for him.

"This was about his convenience," Boehner says. "Him not wanting to go through the fight over the debt limit again."

Can you really fault the White House for not wanting to go through the debt limit fight again? Why was that a fight again?

5.31pm ET

Pelosi wraps. Boehner on deck.

Will he mention the two bills to replace the sequester the House has already passed? Will he call on the Senate to get off their ass? Will he accuse the White House of moving the goalposts? Will he tell the president he's already got his tax revenue?

How exciting it would be if Boehner departs from the script. Fingers crossed. Stay tuned.

5.31pm ET

The Obama administration announced Wednesday that Democrats and Republicans would meet at the White Houseon Friday to try to strike a deal before the midnight deadline. It sounds like the two sides are going to try to talk, at least?

Pelosi says it's the Republicans' fault that it took so long for the two sides to meet. House speaker John Boehner has been saying for weeks that the ball is in Senate Democrats' court. So they can't agree on that either.

5.31pm ET

Pelosi gets a softball question about how she views the Republicans' role in Congress.

"I wonder why I didn't realize it sooner," she says. "We come to Washington to be legislators... and somehow that piece is missing from what the Republicans are doing here. They're just making noise, something that will sound good back home. They did not come here to legislate.

"They're not here to get something done because their caucus is dominated by anti-government ideologues."

5.31pm ET

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi stands with fellow congresswomen to illustrate how sequestration would hurt women in particular, she says.

Pelosi says sequestration would cut $20m from the Violence Against Women Act account. Child care subsidies would be cut, she says. Women, Infants and Children (WIC) programs would be cut. Health care jobs will be lost.

"There's no time to waste," Pelosi says. "You know that. Once again we're up against a time limit."

Connecticut congresswoman Rosa Delauro says of sequestration, "It's especially harmful to women, to their jobs and to services they rely on."

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi and colleagues say sequestration would have a disproportionate impact on women, in a screen grab from CNN. Photograph: CNN

5.31pm ET

Good morning and welcome to our live coverage of the Washington performance art project in which the federal government raises a hammer over its head slowly, slowly, and then hits itself. The sequestration deadline is less than 40 hours away.

Today's lineup of speechmakers reads like the busiest morning of Sunday shows ever. Starting at about 10.30am we've got House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, then House speaker John Boehner, then the Senate Democratic leadership, then a White House briefing with Jay Carney, and who knows what else.

If the nation's political leaders do fail to head off sequestration, it won't be for lack of talking.

While we wait you might enjoy a glance at Woodwardgate, an episode that displays just how starved for spice the sequestration story is. Briefly: journalism legend Bob Woodward went on TV and implied the White House had threatened him because he was writing a story about how the Obama administration had "moved the goalposts" in sequestration negotiations by suddenly insisting on making taxes part of the deal. Woodward's version has been debunked – taxes were always going to be part of the deal. But it has emerged that White House economic director Gene Sperling did indeed yell at Woodward in an attempt to head off the story. What's more, former White House adviser David Plouffe dissed Woodward on Twitter.

Watching Woodward last 2 days is like imagining my idol Mike Schmidt facing live pitching again. Perfection gained once is rarely repeated.

This morning Politico published an email exchange between Woodward and Sperling containing the supposed threat, which is not really a threat. "I know you may not believe this," Sperling wrote, "but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim."

Then Woodward cried out that he'd been threatened. Opponents of the White House have flown to Woodwards defense and .... see how that happened? We're not talking about sequestration anymore! It's like magic. Give us more, Bob, please.

To reconcile Woodward’s journalistic reputation with the weird pettiness of his current role, one has to grasp the distinction between his abilities as a reporter and his abilities as an analyst. Woodward was, and remains, an elite gatherer of facts. But anybody who has seen him commit acts of political commentary on television has witnessed a painful spectacle. As an analyst, Woodward is a particular kind of awful — a Georgetown Wise Man reliably and almost invariably mouthing the conventional wisdom of the Washington Establishment.